DC ZOT!!
Posted on 05/09/2005 5:11:00 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
hey ,... did anyone notice Rep. Frank Pallone , whooooee what a metrossssexual , he made sure to mention the 2 kids
The Senate convened at 2:00 p.m. and adjourned at 6:29 p.m. No record votes were taken.
Next Senate meeting: Tuesday, May 17, 2005
9:45 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business. Thereafter, resume consideration of H.R.3, the Transportation Equity Act.
British Parliament member George Galloway to face oil-for-food accusers (before Senate panel)
The possibility of good theater exists with Galloway's appearance, I would think.
Well, we do have Stormin' Norman Coleman on the job. Could be very interesting. Frankly, I don't care if they uncover wrongdoing on the part of some Americans. In fact, they already have, but our baddies are under indictment. How about theirs.
NTS Reid's opening comments..........."GIMMICKS"
The Senate convened at 9:45 a.m. and adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Three record votes were taken.
Next Senate meeting: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:30 a.m.: Proceed to Executive Session to begin consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
LIVE SENATE THREAD: "Nuclear Wednesday" for judicial nominations: C-span 2 - 9:30 am EST
NTS...............Session Mconnell, Hatch
Old Dem Quotes.
........So I'll be able to find your name tomorrow.......
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 8:52 p.m. No record votes were taken.
Next meeting: Friday, May 20, 2005
9:30 a.m.: Proceed to Executive Session and resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - May 19, 2005)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to say this to my good friend from Oregon before he leaves the floor. I listened intently to his extremely well-crafted and reasoned arguments, and I congratulate him for his important contribution to this momentous, significant debate we are having in the Senate, trying to get ourselves back to the way we comfortably operated for 214 years. I thank my colleague for his contribution.
Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote.
I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's ``advise and consent'' responsibilities to ``advise and obstruct.''
Our Democratic friends did not bring us here by accident. For 4 years, they have steered the Senate toward this unfortunate path. In April of 2001, Senate Democrats held a private weekend retreat in Farmington, PA, to hatch a plan of attack against the President's judicial nominees. According to the New York Times, one participant at the meeting said, quote, ``it was important for the Senate to change the ground rules, and there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite.'' And, thus, we embarked on this uncharted course.
Until the last Congress--the 108th Congress--it had been standard procedure not to filibuster judicial nominees. That changed on February 11, 2003. On that day, Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sought consent to consider Miguel Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court. My friend, Senator Dodd, refused. Senator Hatch offered to increase the amount of time for debate by 10 hours and was refused again. He offered 20 hours. He offered 40 hours. He offered even 50 hours of debate, an unprecedented amount of time. Senator Dodd said as follows:
This is not about the amount of time.
We have heard the repeated argument on the other side that this is about the right to speak. Senator Dodd said that this is not about the amount of time.
Remember that, Mr. President. The next time you hear any one of our Democratic colleagues complain that when we restore the norms and traditions of the Senate, we will be limiting their right to speak or cutting off debate, they themselves say it is not about that. Such claims actually don't withstand scrutiny. I could not agree more with my friend from Connecticut when he said this current impasse is not about the amount of time available to debate.
The Democratic leader, my friend, Senator Reid from Nevada, also agrees with me. When Senator Bennett requested an agreement to consider the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit, Senator Bennett also bent over backward to give the minority whatever number of hours for debate it needed.
Senator Reid responded:
There is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient.
``There is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient.'' Clearly, it must not have been about getting enough time. Our Democratic friends went on to block several more reasonable requests to consider circuit court nominations.
So it is clear the Democrats do not want more time to debate. The minority leader indicated there was not enough time in the universe for that. Rather, a minority of Senators are rejecting the opportunity to debate because they want to kill qualified judicial nominations with clear majority support.
These nomination have gone for 2, 3, even 4 years--the current justice pending on the calendar has been up for 4 years--without a vote, while vacancies on the Federal bench pile up.
I just got an mp3 player....I'll be listening to ZELL at lunch!
The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 2:23 p.m. No record votes were taken.
Next Senate meeting: Monday, May 23, 2005
11:30 a.m.: Proceed to Executive Session and resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
Oh, good. I can listen to Tony untill 10:30 my time. I think I heard from McCain that there is a meeting tonight with 12 or more senators.
Someone needs to explain to McCain that he is NOT the Majority leader
I believe McCain thinks he is BIGGER and more important than the Majority Leader. He once ran for president, don't cha know. You must have heard him or heard of him yesterday saying he has the support of conservatives. I gave him a piece of my mind and set him straight right through the tv screen.
DC ZOT!!
Ummm .. someone needs to inform the Good Senator from Arizona that if he did indeed have the support of conservatives ... then he would have won in 2000
Hi gang---thanks OIF for the ping---I guess it is off to the Day 4 Thread---see ya'll there!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.